Comment on Submission

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations include destructiveHint=true, which signals that the tool modifies data. The description does not add additional context about side effects, permissions, or reversibility, but it does not contradict the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description does not mention the tool's return value or any preconditions. Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at what the response will be (e.g., success message or comment object), but it does not, leaving a gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers all four parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'The Canvas course ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Add a text comment to a submission' and identifies the resource (submission). It is specific and distinguishes from similar tools like grading or rubric submission.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as grading or other commenting tools. It lacks any 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.